Response to That School Blog

I thought the questions posed of whether the beliefs/views of either side were first logical, and then justifiable, were really valid questions that everyone should be asking. If we could just understand that people have different beliefs and that we aren't harmed by that fact, we would get along so much better.  I also really appreciated the quote from the doctrine of the flying spaghetti monster.  The question posed at the start made it seem very Christian-centered, which is where I found faults in Clark's argument in the essay, but using both and leaving the focus of the post to faith in general was really great.



***Response to http://the-writing-junkie-school.blogspot.com/2013/02/question-nohn_24.html

Choking on Beliefs

An issue that came up in my head while doing the reading this week was the hypocrisy of, well, almost everyone.  Not necessarily every individual (though, there are very few people who are never hypocritical, myself included), but certainly members of every group or every side of every argument or conflict. Whatever it is you believe, you want others to believe it too.  On a very basic level, there isn't much wrong with that.  You think that you're right, and you want other people to be right, too.  But there is a very, very thin line between sharing your beliefs and shoving them down someone else's throat.  Sharing is fine.  Sharing is great.  We're taught that the moment we're capable of being taught anything.  But trying to force someone to believe what you believe isn't.  What's worse, is that you can try to make someone else believe what you believe, but then get angry when they try to make you believe what they believe.  That's another thing we're taught early on, the golden rule- treat others how you want to be treated.  If you don't want someone to tell you what to believe, then you can't tell them what to believe.  If people could, with in reason, believe what they wanted without forcing their beliefs onto others, the naturalism vs supernaturalism 'culture war' wouldn't be as much of an issue.

Response to A Possible Compatibilist Argument

I think that there can be free will and determinism and that the two can coexist.  I think it just works in a way that determinism works on a larger scale.  For example, Point A is a fixed point that is determined.  You will get to Point A.  However, the way that you get to Point A depends on you and the choices that you make.  I don't think that means that free will isn't really real or just an illusion.  Or, if it is an illusion, I don't think that it really matters.  Whether free will and determinism are compatible or only one or the other is the Truth, I think as humans we're still going to do what we're going to do.  We're kind of stubborn that way.

Original Post
http://hailykellihernhn.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-possible-compatibilist-argument.html

Determined or Destined?

It seemed surprising to find that scientists lean towards determination over free will because determination sounds an awful lot like destiny.  Scientists and destiny seem more incompatible than determination and free will.  But as I was thinking about it, I guess that the only real difference is a pretty big difference.  Determination falls in line with the laws of the universe.  Although scientists don't have any more control over the universe than they would an all powerful (or even semi powerful) deity, the universe is something they can 'prove' to exist.  And, potentially, the universe would have to follow its own laws.

Response to "Class Discussion Friday"

I agree with Jenna's views on the conversations we had in class last week. I really don't understand how such a vast difference between the rich and poor could be fair. Besides money/power, there isn't some great difference that suggests that the rich are better or deserve better. Often it is the poor who work harder but since I understand that that's just as much of a generalization as saying that the the rich deserve it, what you earn should depend on merit. However there needs to be a base level where everyone has basic necessities based on the merit of being human.

(...says the young, idealistic college student...)

Original post at:
http://jennaoconnorr.blogspot.com/2013/02/class-discussion-friday-what-is-platos.html?showComment=1359926811023&m=1#c6417222508472744540

Soulmates

“According to Greek mythology, humans were originally created with 4 arms, 4 legs and a head with 2 faces. Fearing their power, Zeus split them into two separate parts, condemning them to spend their lives in search for other halves.” –Plato’s The Symposium

I first heard this story as a child, watching "Xena: Warrior Princess" with my father. I've loved this explanation of soul mates ever since. So I was a bit confused when the textbook said that Plato was an advocate against marriage because it left too much to emotion and chance. If Plato believed that the soul was essentially the immortal essence of a person and that the soul had so much power/affect on your disposition, habits, and intellect- intellect linking to where you belonged socially in life- then how come he thought marriage was detrimental to society? Or, how could it be, if the couple was connected in such a way?

However, when I went to actually look at the text, there is a lot more to it than just a cute little story that can slide into popular culture. It has a darker, almost anti-love and kind of homophobic twist, basically used to explain homosexuality.